Her fate living through the Holocaust has led me to my academic and professional career and is the driving motivation behind my work combating anti-Semitism and advocating for Holocaust remembrance in Europe as director of EU Affairs for B’nai B’rith International.

Jewish life has re-established itself among German society, but so has anti-Semitism, leaving German Jews more vulnerable and disillusioned than at any point since the Holocaust.

We should be proud and thankful about, as German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier rightfully called it the “undeserved present of having Jewish communities and culture among its midst despite the unbearable past.” But we should also feel ashamed about the undeniable fact that our society is unable to provide emotional and physical safety for its own Jewish citizens, about the despicable necessity for 24/7 police protection of Jewish kindergartens, schools and synagogues in Germany.

This has to be assessed as a devastating failure in the context of Germany’s historic responsibility of preventing anti-Semitism from ever spreading again.

Wehret den Anfängen - resist the beginnings, because “Never Again” means to prevent repeating our mistakes of the past. Not comprehending and implementing the actual message has turned the very essence of what Holocaust commemoration comprises to an emotive overused term with the rise of anti-Semitism as a direct consequence.

A commemorative culture is obsolete without raising sensitivity toward the actual symptoms that led to it in the first place and that needs to be used to establish guidelines to shape our future:

First we have to lay to rest the belief that this could never happen again, and accept the shameful reality that hate, discrimination and anti-Semitism once again has snuck its way into mainstream society, even into politics.

Udo Voigt, member of the neo-Nazi party NPD won a seat in 2014 and is currently representing Germany in the European Parliament, and the recent national elections saw the far-right Alternative for Germany, AfD win 92 seats to become the third largest political group in the Bundestag.

Along with it goes what already is happening in other European countries, pushed by their right-wing populist governments and parties: A re-narration of history through increasing denial of the past and connection to the crimes committed during the Holocaust.

In Hungary statues of Nazi collaborators are erected, Poland is adopting laws that criminalize any mentioning of Polish complicity to the Nazi genocide and now the last taboo of German society has been broken by members of the AfD.

At the forefront is the prominent AfD member Björn Höcke, who infamously called the Holocaust memorial in Berlin, that pays tribute to the 6 million murdered Jews in Europe, a “memorial of shame.” Or party leader Alexander Gauland, who proclaimed that Germans should “be proud of what {their} soldiers achieved in two world wars.” German police recorded 1,453 anti-Semitic incidents in 2017, among them 32 violent disorders and 160 malicious damages.

An overwhelming 90 percent are still registered as far-right motivated, only 25 incidents are considered religiously motivated anti-Semitism mostly from Muslim extremists and one single incident is believed to be left-wing motivated.

It is crucial to note that the dark figures (estimated numbers of unknown cases) are likely much higher, due to lack of reporting and comprehensive surveys but especially, because the escalation of anti-Semitically motivated incidents is so often wrongly labeled or not even registered as such at all.

In every case lacking a caught perpetrator, anti-Semitic incidences are automatically registered as right wing motivated. The figures therefore fail to recognize far-left anti-Semitism in all its forms but also the often violent escalation of imported Islamic anti-Semitism that is acted out completely detached from the Holocaust, and without any reference to Germany’s historic guilt or its special connection to the Jewish state of Israel and its security as a raison d'état

Mainstream society, the judicial system, politicians and police often lack the sheer understanding of and education about anti-Semitism and its mutations.

Blatantly obvious anti-Semitic incidents such as the arson attack on the Wuppertal Synagogue in 2014 are not even recognized as such and consequently don’t end up in these official statistics, therefore leaving the Jewish community traumatized and in shock twice. First through the attack itself and inability of German authorities to neither prevent nor protect, and then again through the incomprehensible inability of a judge to connect the painfully obvious dots.

Equating the policies of the Israeli government with German Jews, holding them responsible for a conflict thousands of miles away and consequently attacking a Jewish community in Germany by throwing a firebomb on a synagogue, equals anti-Semitism in its purest form. There must not be any discussion or room for interpretation.

Because of instances such as the Wuppertal Synagogue arson attack, organizations combating anti-Semitism don’t have the luxury of raising awareness once a year; we have to deal with the hostile reality and its impact on Jewish communities every day.

I believe it is crucial to understand and acknowledge that anti-Semitism is not an extremist ideology, but a worrisome mainstream phenomenon that can be found in the midst of German society among all demographics and ages, in class rooms, rap music, football stadiums, among academics, media and online social networks.

The younger generation shall not feel ashamed or personally responsible for what happened. But it has an undeniable responsibility that grows out of Germany’s historical burden and does not vanish over time. And that is the obligation to protect and cherish Jewish life and culture in German society and not only combat, but eradicate any anti-Semitic tendencies.

I believe that the underlying issue with German Holocaust commemoration lies in its discrepancy between the mutual omnipresent condemnation of the Holocaust and lack of actually addressing the cause of hate and evil in any way.

This discrepancy then serves as the breeding ground for a dichotomy in German society – that ubiquitous historic responsibility and guilt is able to exist in parallel to rising anti-Semitism.

Holocaust commemoration needs to serve as the foundation on which to build strategies to combat the virus.

If this foundation is an empty shell, motivated by guilt and forced societal obligation rather then individual willingness to ask the crucial questions of how and why, and consequently draw the painful lessons by learning from the past, the commemoration day becomes meaningless; and so is any politician’s repetitive reminder of “Never Again,” their many references to the historic responsibility and the emphasis on this apparent Judeo-Christian heritage.

But besides the moral impediment that grows out of Germany’s historic responsibility, it should be in everyone’s self interest to address anti-Semitism.

Such discrimination does not stop with the Jews – it corrupts and corrodes the very core of our democratic society as a whole. Eradicating anti-Semitism should be an imperative in the name of modern civilized society.

One should not speak out against anti-Semitism because of a moral obligation to be a philo-Semite or friend of Israel, but for the simple reason alone that a fellow citizen and human being is harassed or attacked.

Jewish rights are human rights, and hate against Jews is hate against humanity.

This might sound overly simplistic, emotive and obvious, but is nevertheless not being implemented in our approach to tackling the issue, or in developing strategies to combat it.

Instead ant-Semitism has become so powerful that it outgrew the Jews and can function even without a single Jew actually being present.

Commemoration of the Holocaust needs to serve as a guideline and toolkit that works not only in the context of historic guilt. Remembrance, based on guilt alone, can become overwhelming and might even backfire to the extent of paralyzing individuals, national identity and society as a whole.

Nazi Germany did not invent anti-Semitism, but it did invent the Final Solution, that culminated in the industrial murdering of 6 million Jews.

It is essential to focus on underlying structures, the root causes of the Holocaust and analyze accountability for the horrors of the past, while directly addressing current anti-Semitic sentiments in all layers of society and politics. This needs to happen in close cooperation with Jewish communities themselves but also by building coalitions between special coordinators inside government institutions, civil society and other minority groups that are discriminated against.

“We do not want to preserve our dismay, but draw lessons, that can provide guidance also for future generations,” then German President Roman Herzog urged while establishing the official commemoration day in 1996.

Holocaust remembrance is a responsibility and obligation of German society as a whole. But so is the engagement in combating anti-Semitism, as emphasized by the German government’s recent anti-Semitism resolution that was adopted with large majority. The resolution reads in part:

“The German Bundestag is grateful, that Jewish life and culture exists after the national-socialist dictatorship and despite the Holocaust. Its existence is an enrichment to our society and, in light of our history, a special declaration of trust toward our democracy and state of law, that we want to live up to and have to be committed to forever.”

We must not destroy this trust, and cannot leave German Jewry alone in combating the re-emergence of mainstream anti-Semitism. We should protect and cherish Jewish life in Germany with everything we have, not only due to the moral obligation based on Holocaust commemoration or guilt, but because it elevates our democratic society, our dignity, common values and human rights as a whole.

​​Benjamin Nägele was named director of E.U. affairs for B’nai B’rith International in 2015. In this capacity he focuses on promoting EU-Israel relations and advocates for Jewish causes at the European institutions in Brussels. He previously worked as an EU affairs officer for B’nai B’rith International and as a policy advisor at the European Parliament. Click here to read more of his work.

The report addresses the human rights situation in Venezuela by analyzing the impact that the weakening of the country’s democratic institutions has had on those rights. This report is organized around four main areas of focus, which correspond to the IACHR’s core concerns with respect to Venezuela: democratic institutions; social protest and freedom of expression; violence and citizen security; and economic, social, cultural and environmental rights.

It also includes a cross-cutting analysis of the specific harm done to individuals, groups and communities that are at greater risk and are victims of of historical discrimination and exclusion. These include women, children and adolescents, older persons, human rights defenders, persons deprived of liberty and migrants, refugees, or those in a similar situation, among others.

The IACHR report reveals severe restrictions to freedom of expression in Venezuela through censorship of media outlets, attacks on journalists, the criminalization of dissident opinions or of those who disseminate information contrary to government officials’ versions and the punishment of whose who spread what are considered hate messages on the internet. The report also examines the excessive use of firearms and tear-gas bombs against demonstrators, as well as the participation of members of the armed forces in controlling demonstrations.

The Commission expresses its strongest possible rejection of the harsh measures taken by the state in response to social protests, which left hundreds of people dead; thousands arbitrarily detained; allegations of torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment and sexual violence perpetrated by state agents; and people unjustly tried on criminal charges in military courts.

Compounding the critical situation of democracy and political rights is a socioeconomic crisis characterized by widespread shortages of food, medicine, and medical treatment, materials and supplies. The rights to education and housing have also been seriously impaired. The rates of poverty and extreme poverty in Venezuela are alarming, as are the serious impediments to the exercise of people’s economic, social, cultural and environmental rights, especially for groups that have traditionally faced exclusion and discrimination.

Are there enough reactions before such a tragedy?

Let´s see.

The Peruvian government, backed by 17 Latin American countries, has decided to ask Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro not to attend the Summit of the Americas in April (Peru will host it). Maduro challenged the resolution and threatened to attend “at any cost.”

Elected Chilean President Sebastian Piñera asked Maduro not to attend his inauguration because “he is not welcomed in Chile” (Piñera will take office on March 11).

The overwhelming report of the IACHR, the rejection of 17 countries to the Venezuelan dictatorship, the sanctions determined by the United States and the European Union against Venezuelan officials and economic sanctions too, nothing is enough to relieve the suffering of the Venezuelan people.

Venezuela’s close relation with Iran and Russia essentially protects the dictatorship. Almost 10 percent of the population has fled from the country, mostly to neighboring countries in South America and also to the United States. But proxies and indifference let the tragedy of Venezuela move forward.

Anti-Semitism is not forgotten in the official policies of the Venezuelan regime. A few days ago, Maduro announced that “he has ordered his envoys before U.N. to report the xenophobic campaign against Venezuela in different countries all over the world,” and also “Such campaigns are similar than those made by the Nazis against the Jews.”

It is not the first time that Maduro trivializes the tragedy of the Shoah. Some months ago he also said that “Venezuela is being attacked as Jews were attacked by the Nazis. We are the Jews of the 21stcentury,” he added.

This brutal way of banalizing the Shoah is not the only attack Maduro has recently made against Jews and Israel.

When the United States decided to announce the moving of its embassy to Jerusalem, Maduro made a speech before the Non-Aligned Movement and said that the U.S. decision is “a provocation and a declaration of war against the entire Muslim world, against the good people, one more in decades of ongoing aggression against our beloved historical Palestinian people.”

Several tragedies in history have been possible due to indifference, among other reasons. But indifference is very strong. We can watch it in the Syrian tragedy today. And we can also watch it in Venezuela.​If rogue governments which support those tragedies overcome indifference, hope is very little. So far, indifference prevails.

​Eduardo Kohn, Ph.D., has been the B’nai B’rith executive vice president in Uruguay since 1981 and the B’nai B’rith International Director of Latin American Affairs since 1984. Before joining B'nai B'rith, he worked for the Israeli embassy in Uruguay, the Israel-Uruguay Chamber of Commerce and Hebrew College in Montevideo. He is a published author of “Zionism, 100 years of Theodor Herzl,” and writes op-eds for publications throughout Latin America. He graduated from the State University of Uruguay with a doctorate in diplomacy and international affairs. To view some of his additional content, click here.

The Organization of American States (OAS) General Assembly’s adoption of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples should have been the most important event during the 46th General Assembly in Santo Domingo. It is the first instrument in OAS history to promote and protect the rights of the indigenous peoples of the Americas.

But the situation in Venezuela was the main issue discussed, both on and off the record.

Next week, Permanent Council will convene to discuss the report on Venezuela, made a month ago by OAS Secretary General Luis Almagro, invoking the Democratic Charter.

Since then, Venezuela started a face-to-face fight between the secretary general and the Venezuelan Government.During the General Assembly, Venezuela presented a resolution to diminish the secretary general’s role. Among the proposal’s “resolves” are:

To express its profound concern at the conduct of the Secretary General of the Organization, Luis Leonardo Almagro Lemes, especially his abuse of authority and exceeding of the powers conferred on him under the OAS Charter and the General Standards to Govern the Operations of the General Secretariat, and at his violation and lack of respect for the Code of Ethics of the General Secretariat

To urge the Secretary General to abstain from any activity, regardless of whether or not it is specifically prohibited by the General Standards to Govern the Operations of the General Secretariat, that may result in, or give the impression of resulting in: a) Giving preferential treatment to any organization or person; b) Losing complete independence or impartiality of action; c) Making an administrative decision without observing established procedures; d) Adversely affecting the good name and integrity of the General Secretariat.”

To request the Permanent Council to report to the General Assembly at its forty-seventh regular session on compliance with this resolution.

Venezuela is attempting to diminish the secretary general because he is the only one denouncing, in detail, the ongoing violation of human rights by Maduro´s regime. His 132-page report, which will be discussed next week, has been compelling and emphatic.

There is a very deep division between the ALBA countries (Antigua and Barbuda, Bolivia, Cuba, Dominica, Ecuador, Grenada, Nicaragua, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines and Venezuela) and a group of 15 countries which want to find a real solution to the the Venezuelan people’s is suffering. Those 15 countries decided to issue a statement before the end of the OAS GA, a sort of a preamble for the meeting of the Permanent Council next week.

Statement by Ministers and Heads of Delegation on the Situation in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela Argentina, Belize, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, United States of America and Uruguay

We, Member States of the Organization of American States (OAS), reaffirm our commitment to the Charter of the Organization of American States and the Inter-American Democratic Charter, which proclaims that “the peoples of the Americas have a right to democracy, and their governments have an obligation to promote and defend it”, and our commitment with the respect of the principle of noninterference, universal principles and values of democracy, human rights, and freedom of speech and association;

We reaffirm the Declaration of the Permanent Council of the OAS (CP / DEC 63 2076/16) of June 1, 2016, by which we express our fraternal offer to the Sister Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela to identify, by common accord, a course of action that that will assist the search for solutions to the situation through open and inclusive dialogue among the Government, other constitutional authorities and all political and social players of that nation to preserve peace and security in Venezuela, with full respect for their sovereignty;​Support a timely, national, inclusive, and effective political dialogue to address the immediate needs of the Venezuelan people in accordance with their Constitution and ensuring full respect for human rights and the consolidation of representative democracy;

Express our support for the efforts made by former Presidents Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero of Spain, Leonel Fernandez of the Dominican Republic and Martin Torrijos of Panama and the desire that this process will arrive at positive results in a reasonable time frame;

Encourage respect for the Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela that enshrines, inter alia, the separation of powers, respect for the rule of law and democratic institutions and express our support for the fair and timely implementation of constitutional mechanisms;

and Condemn violence regardless of its origin and call on the responsible authorities to guarantee due process and human rights, including the right to peaceful assembly and free expression of ideas.​We welcome the participation of former presidents Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero of Spain, Martin Torrijos of Panama and Leonel Fernandez of the Dominican Republic at the extraordinary meeting of the Permanent Council scheduled for next June 21, 2016 to present the progress of the initiative of the national political dialogue in Venezuela, and we reiterate our support for the convening of the extraordinary meeting of the Permanent Council on June 23, 2016 for the consideration of the report of the Secretary General on Venezuela. /signed/ Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic, June 15, 2016

If the OAS Permanent Council rejects the request of the secretary general to move forward and stops the violation of human rights in Venezuela, Almagro will not be defeated, but OAS will.

In the last decade, Iran has penetrated Latin America, Hezbollah has the freedom to move inside Latin America and it is all happening in Venezuela.

There is no real judiciary system, no freedom speech and far too many politic prisoners.After so many years, OAS has used its secretary general to speak out. The statement of the 15 countries is cautious, but it is a step forward. How many more steps are they ready to advance? Today, it is uncertain.

In the private meeting between B’nai B’rith International and Secretary General Almagro in Santo Domingo during the OAS GA, Almagro was very clear when he told us that he will not answer to more insults and threats; he follow OAS rules and defend the respect of the Democratic Charter.

Now, the Permanent Council will have to show its commitment to democracy next week.

Eduardo Kohn, Ph.D., has been the B’nai B’rith executive vice president in Uruguay since 1981 and the B’nai B’rith International director of Latin American affairs since 1984. Before joining B'nai B'rith, he worked for the Israeli embassy in Uruguay, the Israel-Uruguay Chamber of Commerce and Hebrew College in Montevideo. He is a published author of “Zionism, 100 years of Theodor Herzl,” and writes op-eds for publications throughout Latin America. He graduated from the State University of Uruguay with a doctorate in diplomacy and international affairs. To view some of his additional content, Click Here

In an op-ed for The Times of Israel, Executive Vice President Daniel S. Mariaschin has returned from the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva and he can report: It’s business as usual. Agenda Item 7 persists as the only country-specific item, maligning Israel year-in and year-out, while a number of regimes around the world violate their own people’s human rights. While in Geneva, Mariaschin spoke with a number of foreign representatives and diplomats, urging them to say “no” to Item 7.

It has been business as usual at the U.N. Human Rights Council, meeting in Geneva this month.

​Here’s why it matters.

Notwithstanding the need for urgent attention to such serial abusers as Syria’s Assad regime, which continues to barrel-bomb its own citizens in the midst of a destructive civil war, and Iran, which most certainly vies for the lead in any number of human rights abuses, including the execution of juvenile offenders, Israel is still singled out for special opprobrium.

If this sounds like a broken record, it is. Each year, all countries up for discussion are lumped together into one agenda item, while Israel is always separated out from the rest for individual scrutiny under Item “7” which applies solely to the Jewish state, the only democracy in the Middle East. Subsumed under that item this year are a basket of separate resolutions, as well as six reports. The resolutions, which make no pretence at being objective, hammer Israel for “the human rights situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory,” settlements, human rights abuses in the Golan Heights and a call for Palestinian self-determination.

The special reports include updates on the infamous Goldstone Commission Report, which was written in the wake of the 2009 Gaza war, and which suggested Israel might be guilty of war crimes. Judge Richard Goldstone, who chaired the group which wrote the report, ultimately backed away from its one-sided findings. In the U.N. system, however, vituperation against Israel has a life of its own, so the report lives on.

What does all of this have to do with the real world in 2016? The Middle East is not only in chaos, it is in meltdown mode in Iraq and Syria. Libya has now become the new ISIS target of opportunity. Iran, soon to be flush with cash from the nuclear deal with the P5+1, sends its Revolutionary Guards to Syria, along with its wholly-owned subsidiary Hezbollah, the terrorist organization that has taken over control of Lebanon, to back the Assad regime. Hundreds of thousands of lives have been lost in this conflict, Christians and Yazidis have been massacred and subject to humiliation, eviction and dispersal, with millions becoming part of the biggest refugee migration in decades.

This situation has received scant attention from a U.N. body “re-formed and reformed” 10 years ago to address real human rights crises. Its 47 members have really done no such thing. It is dominated by countries from the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and the Non-Aligned Movement, and something called the Like-Minded Group of Developing Countries, said to represent 50 percent of the world’s population, whose worldview includes protecting many of those countries who are in the first line of human rights abusers.

This session, as a result of membership rotation, the United States is not on the Council. Nevertheless, it has spoken out strongly against the double standard Israel receives at the hands of the members of the body. Neither is Canada, which has been a staunch defender of Israel over the past decade. The EU countries choose not to participate in the debate on Item 7, though several of its member states, critical of Israel, find a way to do so. The EU could act more forcefully against this on-going diplomatic charade, but it refrains from doing that—another example of how its actions often don’t measure up to the values it claims to uphold.

As for the Palestinians it once again proves that, though largely crowded out of the news because of events in the region, their ability to manipulate the U.N. system continues. Whether it was attaining full membership at UNESCO (the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization), non-member state status at the General Assembly, or getting its flag flown in front of the U.N. in New York and other U.N. venues (including Geneva), they continue to plug away, not feeling any pressure to return to the negotiating table with Israel. And why should they? The Palestinians feel they have the international community’s blindly supportive wind at their back—even at a time when the Middle East neighborhood in which the Palestinians are based, is imploding.

One European diplomat I met in Geneva, after a spirited discussion about how annual denunciations of Israel only embolden the Palestinians and discourage the Israelis, told me point blank that if they were to say “no’ to Item 7, “the Palestinian door would be closed to us.” My rejoinder was that if the EU—which has often been the Palestinians’ friend in court and which has for years funded the salaries of Palestinian Authority (PA) civil servants—really sought to help resolve the Israeli-Palestinian issue, they would spend their time urging the PA to move to the negotiating table, rather than allow this yearly lacerating of Israel to continue.

So as the Middle East burns, Nero—in this case—the Human Rights Council, fiddles. An aversion to doubling down on real abusers of human rights, and a propensity to let the anti-Israel rhetoric flow in Item 7 and its accompanying reports, speaks to the hypocrisy and emptiness of the Council and the system that has produced it.

Living in a time where, from our smart phone screens we can learn, real time, about the abuses of human rights everywhere, a global conscience is AWOL. Each day it stays that way, real opportunities to help those who suffer, pass. Instead, at the Human Rights Council and elsewhere, there is always time to unfairly castigate Israel.​What a terrible waste.

Daniel S. Mariaschin is the Executive Vice President at B'nai B'rith International, and has spent nearly all of his professional life working on behalf of Jewish organizations. As the organization's top executive officer, he directs and supervises B'nai B'rith programs, activities and staff in the more than 50 countries where B'nai B'rith is organized. He also serves as director of B'nai B'rith's Center for Human Rights and Public Policy (CHRPP). In that capacity, he presents B'nai B'rith's perspective to a variety of audiences, including Congress and the media, and coordinates the center's programs and policies on issues of concern to the Jewish community. To view some of his additional content, Click Here.

A recent international conference in Warsaw, Poland provided an opportunity to take inventory of the struggle against anti-Semitism. While the U.S. and European governments have made progress in addressing the problem, evidence of anti-Semitism’s persistence is in ready supply.

2014 saw a breakthrough at the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), a multilateral organization charged with, among other priorities, combating anti-Semitism and other forms of intolerance. For the first time in more than a decade of tackling modern incarnations of Judeophobia, the 57 governments that make up the OSCE codified core principles of the fight against anti-Semitism in a high-level ministerial declaration. “We reject and condemn manifestations of anti-Semitism, intolerance, and discrimination against Jews,” the document intoned.

2014, meanwhile, was also a year that saw a spike in anti-Semitic incidents across Europe and the former Soviet Union. A wave of anti-Israel demonstrations has swept the OSCE region in 2014 and 2015; these gatherings typically have featured blatantly anti-Semitic themes and often have turned violent. Attacks on Jewish individuals and institutions have increased in frequency and intensity, as the landscape from Belgium to Bulgaria, Germany to Greece, Holland to Hungary, and Ireland to Italy has witnessed violence against Jewish targets. This spread of hatred has been accompanied by a corrosion of the public discourse with respect to Jews and Israel and has left European Jewry fearful for their safety and security.

The rise of anti-Jewish hatred also has resulted in a proliferation of anti-Semitic propaganda, much of which is directed against the State of Israel. Tragically, the demonization and delegitimization of the Jewish state has become a daily occurrence, as Israel’s enemies repeatedly accuse it of being a Nazi-like occupier and an apartheid state that disenfranchises the Palestinians. Falsehoods about Israel are repeated so often that they become widely accepted in the popular culture and sometimes impact government policy. The effort by Israel’s relentless critics to denigrate the Jewish state is not only evidence that anti-Semitism is alive and well 70 years after the Holocaust—this new variation of the world’s oldest social illness actually poses a security threat to the Jewish state by intensifying its international isolation.

Against this backdrop, an OSCE human dimension implementation meeting that B’nai B’rith attended in Warsaw this month underscored that while much has been done to fight anti-Semitism in the past decade or more, much work remains. The need for practical and effective strategies to combat and defeat this pathology is still crucial.​B’nai B’rith’s recommendations to the Warsaw gathering included a call for OSCE member-states to affirm commitments made at the landmark 2004 Berlin Conference on Anti-Semitism— and reiterated in last year’s ministerial declaration—and assess the implementation of those commitments. B’nai B’rith also urged:

Member-states must fulfill their reporting requirements with respect to hate crimes data. Far too few of the 57 governments have done so until now.

Governments should widely promote, within the OSCE, the European Union Fundamental Rights Agency’s comprehensive working definition of anti-Semitism and the U.S. State Department’s Fact Sheet on anti-Semitism. It is crucial that governments and other institutions understand how to identify anti-Semitism in order to properly combat it.

The OSCE must enhance funding for the tolerance and non-discrimination unit of its Office of Democratic Institutions and Human Rights. The TND unit has now become a fixed and integral part of the OSCE’s work in combating hatred. We must enable them to sustain and expand their critical activities, which include educational programs on anti-Semitism in more than a dozen countries.

Finally, we must strongly reinforce the crucial principle declared at the 2004 Berlin Conference—that no political position, cause, or grievance can ever justify anti-Semitism—and make clear that the demonization and delegitimization of the Jewish state is often none other than a pretext for the hatred of Jews themselves.

Related Reading:

Eric Fusfield, Esq. has been B’nai B’rith International’s director of legislative affairs since 2003 and deputy director of the B’nai B’rith International Center for Human Rights and Public Policy since 2007. He previously served as assistant director of European affairs at the American Jewish Committee. He holds a B.A. from Columbia University in history; an M.St. in modern Jewish studies from Oxford University; and a J.D./M.A. from American University in law and international affairs. To view some of his additional content, Click Here

​As another year’s U.N. General Assembly’s General Debate session has recently wrapped up, B’nai B’rith has concluded our annual round of meetings with presidents, prime ministers and foreign ministers at the sidelines of the UNGA session.

This week of meetings gives B’nai B’rith leadership access to world leaders and an opportunity to engage in advocacy on core issues of importance to B’nai B’rith, most critically: the safety and security of Israel and the Jewish people throughout the world, and our concerns about the Iranian nuclear deal and Iran’s continued support for terrorism.

In addition to meetings that B’nai B’rith requests on our own, B’nai B’rith also has the privilege of coordinating a number of Jewish organizations seeking joint UNGA meetings. B’nai B’rith is able to do so because of a number of factors.

First, B’nai B’rith has a long-standing position as the only Jewish organization with a full-time office dedicated solely to U.N. affairs, which allows us the opportunities to engage year-round with the diplomats in New York who arrange the meetings and the schedules for the visiting dignitaries.

Second, B’nai B’rith is headquartered in Washington, D.C., an important diplomatic post for all countries, whose diplomats are usually close to the presidents, prime ministers and foreign ministers in their capitals. Third, B’nai B’rith has a wide reach, as an organization with members and supporters around the world who can follow up on requests in their home countries.The importance of these meetings cannot be understated. It is an indispensible component of B’nai B’rith’s U.N. work each year. These meetings offer B’nai B’rith leaders a chance, in some cases the only chance for that year, to engage directly with the leadership of many countries, and in a rather short period of time.

These meetings may not always produce tangible effects because we are a non-governmental organization (NGO), not a state. So, we cannot sign trade agreements or defense deals. Our role is to hold these governments to account, to advocate for the issues of top concern to the members of our organization and to engage in constructive dialogue with the leaders of states large and small.

Often, those issues include the threat posed to Israel, the Middle East and the world-at-large by Iran; terrorism; unilateral Palestinian actions that damage prospects for peace; and the ever-present and growing danger of anti-Semitism. Sometimes the discussion topics are more locally-focused, such as Holocaust-era restitution negotiations in countries that have not adequately addressed this issue.

​Regardless of whether the meeting is friendly or business-like or even tense, though, each meeting has value, for B’nai B’rith and for our partners on the other side of the table. Our interlocutors do not necessarily always agree with our positions, but both sides benefit from the exchange of views.

Each September, appropriately, usually at the dawn of a new year on the Jewish calendar, B’nai B’rith reaches out to the world to engage in respectful and meaningful dialogue on pressing issues that confront the nations. And, once September passes, B’nai B’rith’s efforts to engage diplomatically continues throughout the year in New York, Washington and many other locations throughout the world.

Related Readings:

Oren Droriis the Program Officer for United Nations Affairs at B’nai B’rith International where he supports advocacy and programming efforts that advance B’nai B’rith’s goals at the U.N., which include: defending Israel, combating anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism, and promoting global human rights and humanitarian concerns. He received a B.A. in Political Science from the University of Minnesota in 2004 and an M.A. in International Relations from the University of Chicago in 2006. To view some of his additional content,Click Here.

Seemingly lost in the debate over the Iran nuclear deal is any focus at all on that country’s horrendous human rights record. In choosing to negotiate only on the nuclear program, the P5+1 (the United States plus China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and Germany) lost an opportunity to exert leverage on Tehran’s serial human rights abuses, as well as its support for terrorist organizations like Hezbollah.

It was only in 2011 that the UN Human Rights Council approved the appointment of a special rapporteur on Iran, Ahmed Shaheed, a respected diplomat from the Maldives. From the Iranian regime’s takeover in 1979, it has been a serial abuser of human rights: of political opponents, women, the LGBT community, journalists, adherents of the Baha’i religion and others. It has done so with impunity, unmoved by international exposure of its brazen abridgment of basic freedoms.

This month in Geneva, the Human Rights Council will open one of its thrice-yearly six-week sessions. With the signing of the nuclear deal and the UN Security Council’s endorsement of the agreement, the rehabilitation of Iran in international forums has begun. A number of European states have already embarked on a headlong rush to do business there. Notwithstanding remaining sanctions (for five years) on the acquisition of advanced conventional weapons, it is believed Tehran already is anticipating an armaments buying spree. And Iran will surely bolster its backing (and direction) of Hezbollah and other terrorist proxies.

The forthcoming session at the Human Rights Council should give us a good indication of whether or not Iran will get a pass on its human rights record. Already, some diplomats are reported to have urged “giving Iran some space” on the issue, now that it has agreed to the nuclear deal. That would be bad news for Shaheed, whose 2014 report on human rights in Iran runs 81 pages.

His report, which includes a detailed annex of individual cases, makes for a powerful charge sheet. He notes that there were 753 individuals executed in Iran in 2014, the highest number in 12 years. They included 25 women, and there were 53 public executions. This, while the Tehran regime was negotiating the nuclear deal with the P5+1 powers.

Absurdity is the rule: Shaheed cites the case of a death sentence pronounced on Mohamed Ali Yehari, an expert in alternative medical theories, for “corruption on earth.”

He was originally sentenced to five years for “committing blasphemy.”

Under the category "reprisals against individuals for contact with human rights organizations and U.N. human rights mechanisms," 15 persons were prosecuted or “faced intimidation.”

​The report covers countless examples of arbitrary detention of journalists, lawyers and student activists. Four leaders of the failed 2009 Green Revolution remain under house arrest. Shaheed cites the cases of 30 journalists who were detained on charges of “national security crimes” and “propaganda against the system” and “spreading falsehoods.” Five privately-owned religious TV stations were closed down for “working illegally for satellite TV stations in the United States and Great Britain.”

Last November, 24 Kurdish prisoners went on hunger strikes to protest inadequate medical treatment; they had been arrested on “national security” charges for commemorating International Mother Tongue Language Day. From the outset, followers of the Baha’i faith have been a special focus of social stigmatization. The report notes that 135 Baha’i remain jailed for their religious beliefs. Last year, a Baha’i cemetery was desecrated; to date, no perpetrators have been apprehended. Burials of Baha’is have been delayed or proscribed.

Christians have often been a target in Iran. On Christmas Day last year, nine persons were arrested for celebrating the holiday in the town of Rudehen.

In response to complaints of discrimination against the gay community, the Shaheed report notes that “the government responded by stating its total rejection of homosexual behaviors.”

Violence against women and juvenile offenders is a staple of the human rights abuse catalog: Shaheed cites nearly hundreds of acid attacks on women, many of them for wearing “improper clothing.” No arrests in these cases were reported.

Even with this shameless and pervasive record of rights abuse, one would have thought that Tehran would have released the four Americans it is holding (Washington Post reporter Jason Rezaian; Saeed Abedini, a Christian pastor from Idaho; Amir Hekmati, a dual citizen and Marine Corps veteran; and Robert Levinson, a US government contractor). The temerity of the Iranian rulers seemingly knows no bounds. Not to have made their release a condition for agreeing to the nuclear deal is one of the major criticisms of its opponents.

Addressing Iranian human rights abuses must be made a visible priority by the P5+1 and others in the community of democracies. Placing Ahmed Shaheed’s reports in the circular file and not acting more forcefully to isolate Iran on these issues will only embolden a regime already brimming with hubris over the nuclear deal.

"Giving Iran some space" is surely the wrong approach.

Related Readings:

Daniel S. Mariaschin is the Executive Vice President at B'nai B'rith International, and has spent nearly all of his professional life working on behalf of Jewish organizations. As the organization's top executive officer, he directs and supervises B'nai B'rith programs, activities and staff in the more than 50 countries where B'nai B'rith is organized. He also serves as director of B'nai B'rith's Center for Human Rights and Public Policy (CHRPP). In that capacity, he presents B'nai B'rith's perspective to a variety of audiences, including Congress and the media, and coordinates the center's programs and policies on issues of concern to the Jewish community. To view some of his additional content, Click Here.

Over the past year, human rights advocates and policy experts alike have warned of the growing plight of refugees fleeing the humanitarian crisis triggered in the Middle East. And over the past few weeks, headlines finally began to reflect this desperate reality.

Stories on the human toll of the refugee crisis abound. Laith Majid in tears clutching his two children just off the Greek Island of Kos. Drowned three-year-old Aylan Kurdi on the shores of Turkey. A truckload of more than 70 refugees die of heatstroke in Austria.

The number of displaced people in the world today is the highest number since World War II at 60 million people. Currently there are four million Syrian refugees who have escaped war and dire living conditions and an additional seven million Syrian citizens currently displaced within their country’s borders. The European Union’s (EU) border agency has said more than half a million migrants have arrived at the EU's borders this year, a massive influx nearly double the number from 2014, with origins ranging throughout Africa and the Middle East.

Just last week, President Barack Obama pledged a commitment for the United States to resettle 10,000 Syrian refugees next year, up from 1,000 this past year.But refugee advocates and some members of Congress say taking in an additional 10,000 refugees does not go far enough toward addressing the crisis at hand. The 10,000 refugees would come almost exclusively from the backlog of Syrians who have already applied for asylum, and not those individuals fleeing now.

Indeed such a commitment is fewer people than what some other countries have pledged to accept or have already accepted. German Chancellor Angela Merkel has announced that Germany intends to take in up to 800,000 people who have fled war and persecution, and Canada has committed to 11,300,according to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Still, most European countries have not yet committed to absorb refugees, let alone at such impressive numbers.A dialogue has also been triggered in the global Jewish community about what our organized reaction should be, particularly in light of our own history as refugees seeking asylum from anti-Semitism. Certainly the treatment of migrants evokes, in many, memories of Europe’s darkest hour.

Hundreds of refugees surrounded by armed police officers and razor-wire fences and imagery of asylum seekers in the Czech Republic led off a train where identification numbers were written on their hands, fueled with rising trends of nationalism appear to present Europe’s worst humanitarian crisis since World War II.

To be sure, the migrant crisis is no genocide. Some refugees are Christians fleeing religion-based persecution, but many others are those simply caught in a terrible crossfire of civil war, starvation, chlorine gassing, and barrel bombing, who seek refuge. But it is our shared history of persecution and flight that compels us to act.

Tackling a crisis of this magnitude is going to require the world coming together to not only open borders to more asylum seekers, but also to increase humanitarian assistance to Syria and its neighbors in crisis and push for a political solution to the war. An emergency meeting of EU justice and home affairs ministers will convene tomorrow to address a comprehensive and united EU response to the migration crisis. This is indeed the moment for the international community to gather and create solutions addressing both the immediate and long-term needs created by these challenges, including addressing housing, feeding and clothing the refugees, instituting a practical security screening process, while also establishing a division of responsibility for quota intake of refugees for the foreseeable future.At this time of year, our global Jewish community is celebrating the high holidays. Although a joyous occasion, Rosh Hashanah is a time for reflection. In this week between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, we should pause to reflect on this global crisis, and commit our resolution to tackling the humanitarian challenges.

As Hillel’s teaching reminds us, the Torah commands we should love the stranger in our midst. During this important window of reflection, for now and the future, we pray for a good year to come not only for ourselves and our families but also for all those fleeing persecution in search of safety and freedom, and resolve to work toward eradicating their suffering.

The June 26, 2015 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, in which the U.S. Supreme Court recognized the right of same sex couples to marry and to have their unions recognized by all states and the federal government, was part of a big week of decisions out of the court. In a single week we saw significant rulings on issues ranging from the death penalty to the EPA to President Obama's health care reform. In the case of same sex marriage, the decision was actually the second important Supreme Court decision on the subject in exactly two years. Whether coincidence or not, June 26 is now the date of two decisions that have had a huge impact on the issue of same sex marriage, and, perhaps surprisingly, for the Social Security administration. In June of 2013, the Supreme Court decided in United States v. Windsor (known as the Windsor case) that the federal government must recognize same sex unions recognized by the states, but did NOT require states to allow marriage, or even recognize those legally performed in other states. This meant that for the first time same sex couples could get many federal benefits, like resident status for non-citizen spouses or filing as married on tax day. Before the Windsor decision, many legally married same sex couples filed as married for state returns and single for federal returns, causing confusion and requiring them to spend more money on accountants than other married couples. Others saw their spouses face deportation.There are hundreds, even thousands, of other ways that federal recognition of marriage impacted families, so the Department of Justice coordinated and vetted the implementation of federal recognition across all the government agencies. To the surprise of many, one of the most challenging areas for implementation of the ruling was Social Security. While the Windsor decision was often treated in the media like a one-fell-swoop sort of thing, at the Social Security Administration (SSA) it was actually the opening of a year-long deliberative process which resulted in a final rule that was confusing and burdensome for both SSA and potential Social Security beneficiaries.

Social Security’s statute requires SSA to recognize as marital relationships those legal relationships which are recognized by the state in which a person lives. Since Windsor continued to allow states to refuse recognition, some couples were getting recognition—and benefits—from SSA, while others living in “non-marriage states” were not. To make things more complicated, “recognition” can mean many things. If a state allows marriage license for same sex couples, well then it recognizes same sex marriages. But what if a court has ruled that same sex partners can inherit each other’s property like spouses? Does that count? What about domestic partnerships recognized by the states? The Windsor ruling, therefore, left Social Security treating people differently based on their state of residence AND constantly tracking what each state (and its courts) decided to make ongoing determinations about what constitutes recognition.

And this is a high stakes process. Couples in which one person earns less get to take advantage of their spouse’s earnings record, boosting their own social security payment for life (and upon the death of their spouse, their benefit amount goes up again). For people with little non-Social Security retirement income, these distinctions are critically important. Likewise, workers who die leaving spouses, children and step children have earned benefits on which their families can rely, but part of those benefits depend on the recognition of the legal relationship between the adults.

Now with the Obergefell decision, we have what sounds like one-fell-swoop again: presto, all same sex marriages are recognized by Social Security. But once again, the process will be shepherded by the Justice Department and the results will not be immediately apparent. We do expect that in relatively short order, SSA will be able to divest itself of the burden of determining who lives where to know who is married to whom. This will not only provide more low-income retirees with better access to benefits, but it will also remove a costly administrative burden from an agency that can ill afford to waste its time.

Over the past decade SSA has lost workers (to retirement) without being able to replace them, has had to close field offices due to budget constraints, and has reduced some of its direct communication with the public to save money. The Obergefell decision will have many impacts more noticeable and more celebrated, or more debated, than its impact on the Social Security Administration. But for those of us who recognize the importance of SSA’s mission, and the difficult environment in which the employees work, this is a big deal.

Rachel Goldberg, Ph.D has been the B’nai B’rith International director of health and aging policy since 2003 and the deputy director of the B’nai B’rith International Senior Services since 2007. Before joining B'nai B'rith International, she taught politics and government at the University of Puget Sound and Georgetown University. To view some of her additional content, Click Here.

English Version:

Versión Español:

Adriana Camisar

The return to my home country -Argentina- after living in the United States for 10 years was marked by the joy of being reunited with my family and loved ones and back in the land that I had missed so much, but also by a profound disappointment. Shortly after arriving to the country, in early 2013, the government made public an agreement that it apparently had been negotiating in secret for the last two years with the Iranian regime. Through this agreement, to which I referred at length in previous articles, a bi-national commission was supposed to be created to "re-investigate" the terrible 1994 terrorist attack against the building of AMIA (Argentine-Israelite Mutual Association). The prosecutor of the case, Alberto Nisman, who had accused several Iranian officials of having planned and executed the attack, had not been consulted or even informed of these negotiations. Although the government justified its decision on the need to make progress in a case that they perceived as "paralyzed," the idea of forming an "investigative commission" with none other than the accused of being responsible for the bombing sounded absurd and, therefore, many of us believed that there was something “murky” about this pact. Already in 2011, the late journalist Pepe Eliachev had published a piece in which he stated that a meeting between the Argentine foreign minister and his Iranian counterpart had taken place in Syria. At this meeting -and according to Eliachev's informant- the Argentine minister allegedly stated that Argentina was no longer interested in investigating the AMIA attack and was willing to reach an agreement with the Iranians in exchange for increased trade between the two countries. Many representatives of the Jewish community got mobilized to try to prevent the pact from being ratified by Congress, but our attempts to persuade key legislators from the ruling party not to endorse it were unsuccessful. Two years later, Prosecutor Alberto Nisman surprised the whole country by accusing the president, her foreign minister and other members and allies of the government of having negotiated the agreement with Iran in order to achieve impunity for the accused, in exchange for a trade agreement that included oil. A few days after making this very serious allegation, the prosecutor appeared mysteriously dead in his apartment. The government immediately suggested that it was a suicide. The strong feeling of disbelief among the population though, made them change course and admit the possibility of a murder, but not before making every effort to tarnish the memory of the prosecutor and his reputation, making use of the considerable media-outlets that respond to the government to this end.

Through my work at B'nai B'rith International, I had the opportunity to meet with Prosecutor Nisman on several occasions to learn about the progress of his investigation. He struck me as a brilliant man, extremely passionate about his investigation and, above all, very brave. This is why the current attempts to tarnish his memory causes me deep unease and a sense of hopelessness about the democratic future of my country.

Even though there were brave prosecutors willing to keep Nisman's complaint alive, the judges assigned to the case decided to deny the possibility of a serious investigation and closed the case, with phony legal arguments.

Such a serious complaint clearly deserved the opening of an investigation. But this is no longer a possibility in today’s Argentina.

The fate of the AMIA case itself is also now a big question. Without Nisman and with a government that is clearly trying to get closer to Iran, the chances of getting justice in the case are more distant than ever.

As if all of the above was not enough, the government recently embraced an absurd conspiracy theory, according to which Nisman would have acted in collusion with the so called "vulture" funds (speculative funds that have been litigating for years against the Argentine State) to prevent a rapprochement between Argentina and Iran. The most representative organizations of the local Jewish community, AMIA and DAIA (the umbrella group that represents the Jews of Argentina) were also accused of being a part of this Machiavellian plot, as well as individual personalities of the community.

The government based its allegations on an article that was published in a pro-government newspaper by a former director of the DAIA, who is now a government official. When reading this article one has the impression of reading a chapter of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. It is a piece of classic anti-Semitism that should have no place in a modern democratic society. However, in today's Argentina, an article of this nature is strongly endorsed by the government.

But the government’s offensive did not stop there. The foreign minister decided to renounce his membership of AMIA and did it by publishing a letter, in which he states that he's embarrassed about the fact that DAIA and AMIA oppose the pact with Iran because of "foreign interests." Naturally, the Jewish community felt seriously injured and defenseless.

As an Argentine citizen and a member of the Jewish community, I think the government has crossed a dangerous line. Are they really anti-Semitic? I do not know, but the fact that the president and her supporters did not hesitate to endorse these anti-Semitic arguments to boost their image is quite disturbing.

Argentina is today going through the greatest institutional crisis since the return to democracy in 1983. The recent attack against the Jewish community only adds to the existing confrontations that the government has with other sectors of society.

Because the government has the majority in both houses of Congress, pretty much all the initiatives of the Executive are automatically approved, without the necessary debate that must exist in a true democracy. And now, the government is trying to take control of the Supreme Court - the ultimate guarantor of the separation of powers - by expanding the number of justices in this body and by attacking those members who act with complete independence.

Given that there will be presidential elections in just a few months, it is my sincere hope that the next government, regardless of its political orientation, is able to start the process of restoring our institutions and the rule of law, with the support of the many people who fervently want the country to return to the democratic path that has been so severely damaged in recent years.

Adriana Camisar, is an attorney by training who holds a graduate degree in international law and diplomacy from The Fletcher School (Tufts University). She has been B'nai B'rith International Assistant Director for Latin American Affairs since late 2008, and Special Advisor on Latin American Affairs since 2013, when she relocated to Argentina, her native country. Prior to joining B'nai B'rith International, she worked as a research assistant to visiting Professor Luis Moreno Ocampo (former Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court), at Harvard University; interned at the United Nations Office of Legal Affairs; worked at a children's rights organization in San Diego, CA; and worked briefly as a research assistant to the Secretary for Legal Affairs at the Organization of American States (OAS). To view some of her additional content, Click Here.